SAC to Vegas:SAC to Vegas makes 100% sense. My guess is that Stern basically is telling the Maloofs it won't happen if they are seriously looking at Anaheim, instead.


JAC/MIN to LA:
Apparently, there's an LA stadium in the works, so either Jacksonville or Minnesota is basically a lock to end up there. It's hard to imagine the Vikings leaving, but with the Metrodome situation, the need for a new stadium, and no progress towards it, it could be looming.

Jacksonville was probably the biggest mistake in the history of the NFL. That should have been Baltimore's team to begin with. They are LA-bound.

Athletics to San Jose:
The Giants are fighting any potential A's to SJ move. That could be a tough move to make.

Tampa to Portland
This would probably be a fight from Seattle for a number of reasons. Putting the two teams in the same division would not be a good idea. Like the Mets/Yankees, Dodgers/Angels, Giants/As, Portland would need to go to the NL West.

And the NL already has 16 teams. So you'd have to swap either Arizona or Colorado, and both have fought MLB's requests to put them in AL multiple times in the past.

Tampa Rays to San Antonio:
MLB missed a golden opportunity with the Rangers situation. What they should have done was used the Rangers bankruptcy to get a team in San Antonio when no Texas owner was around to fight it.

It made perfect sense, because it would help everyone in the AL: The AL East would go from 5 teams to 4. And from three powers to two. It would give Texas 9 more games in their time zone. Boston and the Yankees would now have nine more road games outside their division each, which helps ticket sales in six cities every year.

Likewise, the current Mets situation would be a golden opportunity to add a team in New Jersey if ever it was going to happen.

Orlando
Orlando would not be good because the Florida teams draw very poorly. Between the weather and the fact that most people would rather pay spring training prices to watch games in Feb and March when the weather is nicer than regular season games in more extreme weather.

If anything, MLB needed to do this:
Move Oakland to San Antonio during the Texas bankruptcy.
Award expansion teams to Portland and Memphis
Arizona and Colorado go to the AL West

AL East: BAL, BOS, NYY, TOR
AL Central: CLE, DET, CHI, MIN
AL South: KC, TEX, San Antonio, TB
AL West: LAA, SEA, ARZ, COL
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, PIT
NL Central: STL, CHI, MIL, CIN
NL South: ATL, FLA, HOU, Memphis
NL West: SD, LAD, SF, Portland

NHL
The NHL's issues are complex, complicated, and widely discussed on the HFboards' business forum. Check it out, some good stuff there.

Hamilton
Hamilton is not happening. For three major reasons.
#1 - The potential Hamilton owner (Blackberry mogul Jim Balsillie) is a scourge to the NHL. He's tried to hijack three franchises and move them to Hamilton via back-door shenanigans. Each time, getting worse and worse:
Pittsburgh - kicking the tires before the NHL said there's a seven-year no-relocate clause attached to all team sales.
Nashville - selling season tickets in Hamilton while trying to buy the team.
Phoenix - conspiring with the Coyotes owner to a bankruptcy which violates NHL bylaws so he could buy them and move them to Hamilton without league approval.

The NHL now has a "Over our dead body" stance with JB.

#2 - Buffalo. The Sabres would take a massive hit from a Hamilton team. The Sabres owner projected a 15-25% of their tickets come from the Canadian side of the border. All these people and their children would basically become Hamilton fans. So any "health issues" for a franchise being solved by moving a team to Hamilton would be a zero-sum game, because the Sabres would then become a poor, needy market.

#3 - MLSE. The ownership conglomerate of the Toronto Maple Leafs will fight to the death to keep a team from going to Hamilton. They have claimed they have veto rights to Hamilton. And when the NHL said "No, you don't" the Leafs said "Well, if you need us to prove it in court, we'll take you on as well." They are the giant elephant in the room when it comes to Hamilton.

Seattle
Minor point, but Seattle has never had an NHL team that actually played. But they did almost get one. Seattle might be one of the rare situations where a local team has no disagreement with a team entering their market. Vancouver has a stable fan base. They won't lose many fans because of the Canada-US thing. Given they have arguably the worst travel in the league, they'd welcome Seattle replacing Minnesota in their division if it was a eastern team (Atlanta?) moving there.

Phoenix to Seattle, with Colorado swapping divisions makes some sense as well.

Quebec and Winnipeg
No brainers. These should be candidates #1 and #2a or #2b in any relocation discussion. ALSO, Gary Bettman has a deep history of awarding teams to markets which either (a) lost NHL franchises or (b) were teased with getting one (Hamilton notwithstanding)

The HF Canada contingient hates on Bettman for "allowing" Winnipeg and Quebec to move and ushering in Southern Expansion, but (a) Bettman was hired to carry out the NHL's southern expansion goals after the previous guy started it (b) he rubber stamped the moves after no local ownership group was capable of retaining the teams and the local municipalities would not build arenas, and (c) the FOUR teams Bettman added were either cities that lost NHL teames once: Minnesota (North Stars) and Atlanta (Flames), or had a team about to move there, only to have it fall through: Columbus (Whalers) and Nashville (Devils).

The one city you are missing for the NHL is Houston.
Teased with the Oilers, Houston makes the NHL better in a variety of ways:

#1 - Houston is one of the largest markets without an NHL team, which helps TV negotiations.

#2 - Dallas gets a rival. They have one of the lowest number of games in their own time zone based on being in a division with LA, SJ, ANA and PHX. A Dallas-Houston rivalry would help both teams draw well, and by extension, Austin (Texas Stars) and San Antonio (becomes Houston affiliate) would basically create battle-lines across the state among hockey fans in both the NHL and AHL. It would really lead to an increased interest in a very large state.

#3 - Depending on whom moves there, it would make travel better for everyone.


The NHL's ultimate scenario for improving their league based on team locations would be:

PHX to Houston (NHL says "Southern expansion didn't fail" and goes to HOU. Gives up Jets name/history as part of the deal)
FLA or ATL to Quebec
Winnipeg and Seattle as expansion teams

Northeast: MON, OTT, QUE, BOS
Great Lakes: TOR, BUF, DET, PIT
Atlantic: NYI, NYR, NJ, PHI
South: TB, CAR, WAS, ATL or FLA

Central: MIN, WIN, CHI, STL
Southwest: DAL, HOU, NASH, CBJ
Pacific: LA, ANA, SJ, COL
Northwest: VAN, SEA, EDM, CAL

I'm a big NHL fan from Pittsburgh originally, and I like what JP has done with some divisions but not others.
Columbus really hasn't developed any rivalries yet, but I think they form a a nice cluster with PIT, BUF, and TOR. You can drive from Columbus to PIT in 2 hours, BUF in 3.
I would keep DET in the Central with STL and CHI. MIN Wild have complained about their travel and the North Stars used to be part of that cluster (the old Chuck Norris Division).
So if we go to 32 I like:

QUE*, MTL, OTT, BOS
TOR, BUF, PIT, CBJ
NYR, NYI, NJD, PHL
WSH, CAR, TB, ATL or FLA

MIN, DET, CHI, STL
NASH, DAL, HOU*, COL
ANA, LA, SJ, PHX
EDM, CAL, VAN, SEA*

Basically relocate either Atlanta or Florida, and add 2 expansion teams - new / relocated teams to Quebec, Houston, and Seattle
I like Houston for their TV market, Quebec for huge local support, and Seattle forms a nice tight geogrphic cluster with VAN and the 2 Alberta teams.
Honestly I don't have a feel for whether Seattle is a hockey town. Winnepeg would certainly draw to the extent possible
(especially with hockey being the only game in town, but it's just SO SMALL vs. about 4 million in Seattle)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/NHL-players-wary-on-Winnipeg-Can-Atlanta-rally-;_ylt=An1plTBER9Y68k5dMla8pkV7vLYF?urn=nhl-324921

NHL players wary on Winnipeg? Can Atlanta rally for Thrashers?

ESPN's Pierre LeBrun reported over the weekend that the Atlanta Thrashers are at a rather perilous moment in their franchise's brief history:

The ownership situation is getting urgent in Atlanta. We were told this weekend that the league is trying mighty hard to find a new owner who's willing to keep the team in Atlanta.

The league's sole focus right now is to keep the team in Atlanta and given its ability to find new owners in Tampa, Buffalo and Phoenix, it's not unrealistic to think the league won't be able to pull it off again. However, should a new owner not be found in the next six to eight weeks, we're told the Thrashers could indeed be up for relocation and Winnipeg would very likely be the new home.

Having lived agonizingly through the theft of the Baltimore Colts by Indianoplace, I sympathize with the San Diego fans, but they better get their act in gear soon. The Baltimore civic leaders did nothing but talk about a new stadium in the 1970's-early '80's. Funny how they found the means to do it after the Colts were out the barn door.